The Witch: Interrogating and Deconstructing Christianity
14 Comments
-
-
reagan@yourfilmprofessor.com says:
I think so! The goat has often been a symbol for the devil and that certainly seems to be the case in The Witch!
-
-
Just wanted to say that I’ve come across your page by chance and I absolute love your way of analysing and talking about movies and ideas they (may) suggest. Really well done!!
-
Thank you SO much Sofia, I really appreciate your thoughtful and generous sentiment!
-
-
-
Hmm…so based on my response to The Witch, I think this is a fair question and I
might add a very complicated one. If I’m being honest with myself, and thus honest with you, I would say that, yes, I do hate one facet of Christianity, that which has historically led to so much intolerance, hate, cruelty and bad actors committing atrocities in its name, some of which The Witch does get at. In this context, I would hope that any critical thinking individual passionate about any belief system would be open to understanding the negatives along with the positives of any belief system, a way to make that belief system better. I sincerely hope that people will read my blog post on The Witch in that light. Having said that, I must add that I have always admired much of Jesus’s preaching, teachings, and actions and how at least some parts of the Bible support that facet of Christianity. In that framing, since Jesus is I believe supposed to be the core of Christianity, I would say that I also love a significant part of what constitutes Christianity. In all sincerity thanks for this opportunity to clarify my thoughts on Christianity!
-
-
Kristen Jamie Vincent says:
Thank you for backing up exactly our analysis of this film. You are an intelligent writer who has a talent for finding the deeper meanings.
-
Thank you SO much for your generous sentiment and positive reinforcement of my work, I really appreciate it! And if you want to post a link to your work here, I would be happy to post it and take a look at your analysis of the film. Thanks again!
-
-
Bobbi J Oh says:
I loved this movie and your explanation. There is such a sense of brooding malevolency. I am a lawyer with a background in anthropology, and this movie was straight out of the trial transcripts. One of the key questions of law and fact during the trials was whether you could be a witch and not know it. Under English common law, no, because a capital crime requires intent. But this was Salem. This movie answers in the affirmative, especially if god knows your heart – as discussed between Caleb and his father.
-
Interesting, thought provoking observation! The one issue I have with the latter part of it is that, as I convey in my blog post, I don’t think Thomasin was a witch, with intent or not, until pushed in that direction by the doctrines of Christianity (at least as interpreted by the Puritanical parents) and the evil forces that inform being a witch. That’s why I argue the film is less about a focus on being a witch than on Christianity itself.
-
-
MC says:
Given the times we’re living in, of course the primary reading has to be one of female liberation from an oppressive patriarchy — only that reading doesn’t match the film at all. First, the father is hardly a cruel, overbearing patriarch. Thomasin even chastises her father for letting his wife, her mother, call the shots in the family. Secondly, when referring to the “slut” interpretation, it isn’t the males in the family — the father, Caleb — that accuse her of this. It’s another woman, her mother, that labels her, berates her — to of vanity, envy. You failed to analyze that at all, only mentioning that it’s the mother that says these things. Thirdly, the family member who suffers most is Caleb, not Thomasin. It’s Caleb that acts as the peacemaker, that tries to protect his sister (from herself!) when she tells Marcy that she’s a witch, that goes out in the early dawn to the trap so that his sister won’t be sent away to another family. It is Caleb that is then sexually assaulted by the witch, is the only naked person in the film (nudity as shame in keeping with the times), and then dies a prolonged death (either taken into heaven, or in a fit of delirium, falsely into hell). Signing her soul over to the devil at the end of the film hardly represents liberation from patriarchy for Thomasin. She just willingly gave away her soul, and though she may float up into the treetops, her eventual fate will be everlasting damnation and torment. Hardly a victorious ending and expression of female empowerment. Historically, in Europe, it’s estimated that 20-25% of people tried for witchcraft were men, so while there was certainly a misogynistic angle to many accusations, it wasn’t exclusively so, and accusations of witchcraft primarily came from very real (at the time) fears of Satanic influence and mortal peril. Overall, your analyses are rather predictable, very contemporary in their assertions, but ignore the actual text of the film in being so. The film is about temptation and sin — sins of pride, lust, vanity — and a very really sense of the time that beyond the safety of the community, of the hearth, lay evil, which the forest represents. The devil was ever-present, and looking for any weakness that would allow entry and lead to someone’s eternal downfall. It was, especially in Puritan America, a life of constant fear — plus predestination, the idea that no matter how good a life you lived, God had already decided before you were born if you’d be chosen for heaven or for hell. These are the angles for approaching a reading of this film, and there are so many applications to our own times, rather than the ready-made-of-our-times analyses that you apply. Sorry to be so blunt, but…
-
Such a thoughtful and thought provoking response! I’ll take each point in turn:
“Given the times we’re living in, of course the primary reading has to be one of female liberation from an oppressive patriarchy — only that reading doesn’t match the film at all. First, the father is hardly a cruel, overbearing patriarch. Thomasin even chastises her father for letting his wife, her mother, call the shots in the family.”
A father doesn’t need to be “cruel” or “overbearing” to be a patriarch. Yes, you’re right that the father is not an “overbearing” patriarch (or, well, relatively speaking!), but he is still wholly in charge, still the autocratic decision maker.
“Secondly, when referring to the ‘slut’ interpretation, it isn’t the males in the family — the father, Caleb — that accuse her of this. It’s another woman, her mother, that labels her, berates her — to of vanity, envy. You failed to analyze that at all, only mentioning that it’s the mother that says these things.”
You do raise an important point here, that perhaps I need to make clear a distinction: Patriarchy is an ideology, not about gender/sex. Yes, the term “patriarch” typically refers to (toxic masculinity) men but women can be patriarchal as well. Margaret Thatcher is a typical illustration of a “patriarchal woman.” More pointedly, patriarchy is a general way of thinking and being, an ideology we are born into, indoctrinated from a very young age to think of as natural and normal and not to be questioned. In this context, the mother is very much indoctrinated by patriarchy, Christianity itself very much a patriarchal (sexist, phallocentric, hierarchical, etc.) religious belief system. If you’re interested, I highly recommend the book “The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy” (Allan G. Johnson).
“Thirdly, the family member who suffers most is Caleb, not Thomasin. It’s Caleb that acts as the peacemaker, that tries to protect his sister (from herself!) when she tells Marcy that she’s a witch, that goes out in the early dawn to the trap so that his sister won’t be sent away to another family. It is Caleb that is then sexually assaulted by the witch, is the only naked person in the film (nudity as shame in keeping with the times), and then dies a prolonged death (either taken into heaven, or in a fit of delirium, falsely into hell).”
I don’t have an issue with this point. You’re right that Caleb suffers the most. I don’t think I say otherwise in my essay. I do say that Thomasin suffers the most from the sexist intolerance of her religion (so quick to see her as sexual when she has not displayed this at all), but that isn’t the same thing. In any case, Caleb and Thomasin (and the other children) are the victims here.
“Signing her soul over to the devil at the end of the film hardly represents liberation from patriarchy for Thomasin. She just willingly gave away her soul, and though she may float up into the treetops, her eventual fate will be everlasting damnation and torment. Hardly a victorious ending and expression of female empowerment.”
I think you need to go back and read my thoughts. I certainly don’t say that the ending moment is “a victorious ending and expression of female empowerment”! As I say in my essay, it is a tragic ending for Thomasin. She is given no good choice, between a Christian religion that will not let her self-determine and self-actualize herself or worse, falsely condemn her for witchcraft and give her a horrible death. She is “freed” from that, but, as I also stress, she then has little choice but to choose the path of a “witch,” most definitely not a good choice either, choosing a path that will lead to her being a monster. This is the radical complex binary that Eggers is saying that too many Christians in history have had to choose, a truly monstrous bind.
“Historically, in Europe, it’s estimated that 20-25% of people tried for witchcraft were men, so while there was certainly a misogynistic angle to many accusations, it wasn’t exclusively so, and accusations of witchcraft primarily came from very real (at the time) fears of Satanic influence and mortal peril.”
Thank you for that corrective. I knew that men had been accused of witchcraft but I didn’t know that the number was that high. Still, as the article I cited and other pieces stress, the point here is still the same, that since Eve, the Bible has cast women as inordinately “sinful,” witches just being one example of many that was used to perpetuate this terrible trope. Moreover, I’m speaking of “representation” not reality, an important distinction.
“Overall, your analyses are rather predictable, very contemporary in their assertions, but ignore the actual text of the film in being so. The film is about temptation and sin — sins of pride, lust, vanity — and a very really sense of the time that beyond the safety of the community, of the hearth, lay evil, which the forest represents. The devil was ever-present, and looking for any weakness that would allow entry and lead to someone’s eternal downfall. It was, especially in Puritan America, a life of constant fear — plus predestination, the idea that no matter how good a life you lived, God had already decided before you were born if you’d be chosen for heaven or for hell. These are the angles for approaching a reading of this film, and there are so many applications to our own times, rather than the ready-made-of-our-times analyses that you apply.”
By “lust,” I guess you mean Caleb. By “pride” and “vanity,” I guess you mean the father. I would add what many others stress, the mother embodying the “sin” of “wrath.” I suppose this is a compelling reading if one believes in this facet of Christianity. For me personally, I don’t find this reading compelling for a few reasons. First, that scene when Caleb challenges “original sin” and the father doesn’t have an answer for this obvious contradiction, suggests to me that Eggers is using this to interrogate the very idea of “sin,” at last in terms of how it has been largely contextualized in Christianity. Second, that saying Caleb is sinful for his natural burgeoning sexual desires is another way that I think Eggers is challenging this very notion or indoctrinated norm of “sin.” In terms of at least the father, yes, he is at least prideful, but for me he is prideful due to his Christian belief system, yet another way to interrogate the very notion of, well, some facets of “sin,” but also a belief system that can do the very thing it says not to do
.
The rest of what you say here is yet again belied in a whole section of my essay that you chose not to address, what to my mind Eggers is ultimately challenging, something incredibly radical, that in the vein of what happens to this family, God could be equated to the Devil, since both sociopathically either cause death (the Devil/witch) or allow death and suffering of innocents (God).Forgive me if I’m getting this wrong, but my sense is that you are filtering the film through your own (Christian?) belief system, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that. In this context, we just see the film through different belief lenses, and that is what is so enriching about such back and forths, that we can pose different ways of thinking and being, a truly dialectic approach to art texts.
“Sorry to be so blunt, but…”
No need to apologize. As I say above, you offer up some very interesting and provocative ideas, and I will always appreciate that!
-
-
Kiley Elliott says:
I thought this was a very well thought out and interesting take on this film. I did want to bring another perspective on the Apple scenes. I immediately took the lie of apple tree as a foreshadowing to the apple coming from Caleb’s mouth. That through this sin of lying he partakes into further sin and joins “Eve” (the witch) in biting the apple. I also thought it a little funny in my own weird sense of humor that his lie to his mother be so graphically expelled from his mouth for a second time.
-
I’m not sure I would make the “witch” “Eve” otherwise I really like this provocative reading. And thanks so much for your positive sentiments, I really appreciate it!
-
Eva Layton 
Cameron Hawthorn